I want to reframe the debate about guns... what about non-lethal weapons?
Yes, I know, tasers can kill; however, bullets are more likely to kill.
Why aren't we talking about the development of more and better nonlethal weapons for police and for residents who wish to "stand their ground"? (Note: I count myself as one of those people.)
To own guns or not to own guns, that's not the question, at least not the whole question. If there is going to be a stupid mistake made at some point when someone feels they're defending their property or life, at least make it a mistake with a higher likelihood that someone won't needlessly die.
How about that?
What non lethal weapons should the police use in a shoot out with a criminal who is firing a gun. If someone breaks into my home with a gun and I shoot him and he dies, it is not my mistake, it is his.
and he gets to shoot me in turn with his gun?
with one the toughest gun control laws in the country, with throwing a hot steam iron, or a metal window fan at an intruder; working in a store, or a burglar trying to break into my home.
If a weapon is strong enough to stop a strong, determined assailant on amphetamines or worse, it will kill a large proportion of children.
OK maybe throwing a Winnie the Pooh doll at someone ... that doesn't do much good..unless they would like to share some hunny.
Imagine having it used on THEM when they attack protestors?
Rest assured that plenty of money has been poured into research of non-lethal weapons, but to this date no more effective way of stopping someone has been found than shooting small pieces of lead into them at high velocity.
We're not going to be using phasers set on "stun" any time soon.
It is sad, but that is what it has come to in this country.
Were this gap to close, I think most would be happy to carry non-lethal devices, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. A Glock is a far better tool for self-defense than a Taser or pepper spray.
Truthfully the odds are so small, I believe anyone who wants to carry a gun in public should be denied a permit for being batshitcrazy. And, they should be forced to talk to Zimmerman about what happens when you carry a gun in public.
I don't much care about people keeping a "reasonable" number and types of guns at home, but carrying them into Chuck E Cheeze, church, parks, etc., is nuts.
We've got to bring the dialog to their college kids, who might be more interested in getting into non-lethal weapons research.
A good idea. Need to slow down pipeline too.
E.g., what about drones delivering sleeping or other kinds of gases, rather than bombs, followed by forces who could come in and capture alive those who look like their targets? I'm sure it wouldn't work perfectly, but if it killed fewer innocents, wouldn't that be better?
Should we at least be asking how much research $$ is going into this as compared to lethal weaponry?